Jamie,
wise words, but no cigar here. For a "RE-Evaluation" I have insufficient
knowledge even in the "E" - to compare it into a "RE-".
Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being just a
'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical fraction of the
totality within boundaries of our capabilities to observe) because so far
nobody (incl our computers) had the mental power to exercise statistics upon
the infinite totality - which would be trivial anyway.
Stathis is wise to concentrate on THIS (our?) universe in his Stathistical
considerations, as he mentioned. If we include the multiverse (any
definition) into statistics it would produce inadvertently infinites
compared to infinites and it would require a Georg Cantor to find out how to
compare all those infinites.
The sophisticated 'statistical' and 'probabilistic' math is fine, it is a
good mental game, but all is originated in limited patterns for the
comparison. Change the boundaries of your model (selection) and both the
statistical figures and the (arbitrary? so called:) probabilities will
change. (Useful though they are in building our technology).
You need a vacation from the mathematical brainwashing to agree.
I feel, you have it.

John


On 4/2/07, James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> John M, et al,
>
>
> It is a fact of existential experiencing that
> minds are typically so innured to their millieu
> and environmental encounters that 'alternative
> interpretations' are overlooked and missed to
> appreciation and understanding.
>
> ---  When it became apparent to me that
> QM -and- Relativity are undeniable behemoths
> of existential relation, a la mode "Holmes",
> the unavoidable conclusion arose that the
> mis-analysis which keeps them 'separate' rests
> not in their respective qualia and aspects, but
> in our comprehension of mathematics.
>
> If the respective mathematics of statistics and determinism
> are distinct and 'irreconsilable', then we need to do
> a re-evaluation of the 'mathematics in general' for amenability,
> rather than making an effort to force-fit equations that
> resist algorythmic transformation into one another.
>
> Jamie R
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to